I guess the reasons I would give for the Open Era being tougher than the pro tour are:

a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).

b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.

I would add, regarding the H2H, that Nadal wouldn't lead the H2H against Djokovic, Davydenko, Federer, had the the majority of the matches been played on indoor, especially on wood...H2H is very dependent of the surfaces on which most of the matches occurs. This another grief against the H2H things. What would have been the H2H of Gonzales if he had played the majority of his matches against Rosewall or Laver: you know it: he would trail.

That's really not fair. Stan Wawrinka played a great match and everyone, even Federer at his peak had tough matches at times. Tilden did, Laver did, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Sampras etc.

Anyway he was just asking Dan where he ranked Djokovic and Nadal. Notice that Federer was on Dan's list among the top few and BobbyOne thought the list was fine.

Speaking of matches and Federer. Really looking forward to the Federer/Murray match tonight. Unfortunately it'll be on in the early morning hours in New York.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a teen age kid to be upset that Roger Federer is not there in someone's list. I never liked his Tennis eight years ago hoping that all Tennis lovers in future will place him in the list of top ten players of all time. I respect Dan's list irrespective of whether Roger is there or not. I believe BobbyOne is here with an agenda against Roger and so I picked on that. I admit I am not being fair to Stan Wawrinka but at times you can't help being unfair.

As far as Roger Federer is concerned, if my memory serves me correct, from 2004 -2007 during his peak years he played five setters only with Agassi (US), Safin (AO), Haas (AO) and Rafa (W) and four clay losses. Three against Nadal and one against Keurten. He lost only five times in that period in majors. Even if we are to take Djokovic from 2011 onwards,. he has lost already four times and played more five setters. Roger's dominance was out of the world

Regarding SF, don't worry. Roger will mostly lose. I don't think he can grind with Murray in that slow court at age 31. And we can have posters claiming that Murray is "stronger" than Federer by the end of 2013. Peak Murray may beat a never aging peak Federer

__________________
There is an artist in Roger Federer who expresses himself best at the Tennis court

I guess the reasons I would give for the Open Era being tougher than the pro tour are:

a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).

b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.

Tougher is different in this case from average level of play. I'm just discussing average level of play. Yes it may be physically tougher for one tournament but even that's debatable because the old time pros played virtually every day. But yes I understand your point. But still you do understand what mean when I write that the average level of play of the opponents Rosewall faced was lower. Rosewall didn't face Laver as much, or Gimeno or Gonzalez or Hoad. He faced Bob Lutz instead or players not as good as Lutz.

I'm not totally sure how one can make the assumption Federer is greater or Nadal is greater against a wide field. Nadal's winning percentage at the same age is higher than Federer. In Federer's favor he has had a few years superior to Nadal's best years. The question is if both are healthy and rested who is better? Federer's smooth style takes less wear and tear out of him than Nadal. Of course that is one of the reasons Federer is stronger at the end of the year. Maybe the question should really be, assuming a normal year at their best, who is better? We have to assume Nadal will have injuries as a result of his style.

I would add, regarding the H2H, that Nadal wouldn't lead the H2H against Djokovic, Davydenko, Federer, had the the majority of the matches been played on indoor, especially on wood...H2H is very dependent of the surfaces on which most of the matches occurs. This another grief against the H2H things. What would have been the H2H of Gonzales if he had played the majority of his matches against Rosewall or Laver: you know it: he would trail.

I think almost posters, especially if they claim to have seen Tennis from 60s would understand that H2H is surface dependent. Roger played 14 matches against Nadal on clay and lost two. He leads two surfaces, hard courts (6-5) and grass(2-1). Unfortunatley Rafa didn't go deep when Roger was in prime. Most of the people know that but they pretend that it's irrelevant. Then ONLY they can take digs at Federer stating that Rafa is stronger than Roger. You can ONLY wake up a sleeping person

__________________
There is an artist in Roger Federer who expresses himself best at the Tennis court

I think almost posters, especially if they claim to have seen Tennis from 60s would understand that H2H is surface dependent. Roger played 14 matches against Nadal on clay and lost two. He leads two surfaces, hard courts (6-5) and grass(2-1). Unfortunatley Rafa didn't go deep when Roger was in prime. Most of the people know that but they pretend that it's irrelevant.

Of course you're right. I do think Nadal is stronger now (assuming health is good) on grass and hard court than he was when he was younger.

But I've thought that several times. Is it Federer's fault Nadal lost early in a tournament? Of course not. One of Federer's great strengths is that he almost never loses to a player he should beat. He is better in that respect imo than Nadal over the years.

Of course you're right. I do think Nadal is stronger now (assuming health is good) on grass and hard court than he was when he was younger.

But I've thought that several times. Is it Federer's fault Nadal lost early in a tournament? Of course not. One of Federer's great strengths is that he almost never loses to a player he should beat. He is better in that respect imo than Nadal over the years.

Nadal isn't at his peak on grass anymore I don't think, hard to say though in 2010 he beat a lackluster Berdych and 2011 Djokovic tooled a mentally frail Nadal. He's become more consistant on those surfaces now, he was still capable of great performances on hard and grass when he was younger.

And Federer's consistancy takes a massive dump on Nadal's (off clay), the finals, semi-finals, and quarter-final streaks are enough proof of this.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a teen age kid to be upset that Roger Federer is not there in someone's list. I never liked his Tennis eight years ago hoping that all Tennis lovers in future will place him in the list of top ten players of all time. I respect Dan's list irrespective of whether Roger is there or not. I believe BobbyOne is here with an agenda against Roger and so I picked on that. I admit I am not being fair to Stan Wawrinka but at times you can't help being unfair.

As far as Roger Federer is concerned, if my memory serves me correct, from 2004 -2007 during his peak years he played five setters only with Agassi (US), Safin (AO), Haas (AO) and Rafa (W) and four clay losses. Three against Nadal and one against Keurten. He lost only five times in that period in majors. Even if we are to take Djokovic from 2011 onwards,. he has lost already four times and played more five setters. Roger's dominance was out of the world
Regarding SF, don't worry. Roger will mostly lose. I don't think he can grind with Murray in that slow court at age 31. And we can have posters claiming that Murray is "stronger" than Federer by the end of 2013. Peak Murray may beat a never aging peak Federer

Frankly all I want tonight is a decent match. With the other semi I am glad Djokovic won because I don't think Ferrer would stand a chance in the final.

He always fights. I enjoy his game but if he faced Federer or Murray in the final I would think if Federer or Murray play decently, not even above their regular level that they would win. Anyway would you rather see Federer or Murray against Djokovic in the final or Ferrer? Unless you're a Ferrer fan I think most would rather see Djokovic against Murray or Federer and that's what we'll getting thank goodness.

I guess the reasons I would give for the Open Era being tougher than the pro tour are:

a). To win an Open slam, you usually have to beat some lesser players to begin with, followed by the top opponents in the QF/SF/F - whereas in the pro ranks, you only had to do the latter. Yes, the average level per match would be higher in the pros. However the number of obstacles each player had to face would be lower - because they would 'only' be facing their fellow greats, not the 'lesser' players beforehand who, on any given day, could cause an upset (i.e. Rosol over Nadal).

b). Sort of related to the above is the issue of the head-to-head pro tours. It's often stated that Federer is greater than Nadal, despite his losing h2h, because of his greater accomplishments. Yet when posters talk about the old pro tour, the h2h's between the top players become of the utmost importance. The fallacy behind this can be shown because, if there had been a pro tour over the past 10 years, Nadal would have come out with the best h2h's against all his rivals. Yet we know, when playing the wider field, that Federer is greater.
Hence the h2h pro tours are not as meaningful as some make them out to be.

Excellent post. I don`t see how anybody could counter this arguments. The greater the field is, the tougher it is to dominate. Laver for example in the period 64-67 he only had to worry about Rosewall and from time to time with Gimeno, and past their primes Gonzalez and Hoad. From 1968 he had to face (besides Rosewall and Gimeno) Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, Nastase, Connors, Santana, Kodes, etc. Adding the famous "journeymen" to the mix as well. He tasted what a journeyman could do very quickly at the Us Open. However, he came on top most of the times against this field (at least the first 2 or 3 years of the open era), which speaks volumes of him.

He always fights. I enjoy his game but if he faced Federer or Murray in the final I would think if Federer or Murray play decently, not even above their regular level that they would win. Anyway would you rather see Federer or Murray against Djokovic in the final or Ferrer? Unless you're a Ferrer fan I think most would rather see Djokovic against Murray or Federer and that's what we'll getting thank goodness.

Of course I'm not fan of that old clown! If what he showed today was fight tennis is in big ****

Remember also that while Gonzalez won big matches from Kramer he also lost the tour by a resounding score of 26 to 97 on their head to head tour. Trabert while a fantastic player lost his tour to Gonzalez by 27 to 74 and Trabert was virtually unbeatable in his last year as an amateur. I think (this is from memory so don't hold me to this) that Trabert won the last 15 tournaments he played in and the last three majors of the year in his last year as an amateur.

Frank Sedgman was a dominant amateur but he still lost on tour to Kramer by 41 to 54. Sedgman may have lost by a slightly larger margin to Gonzalez at that point. Still a great showing by Sedgman considering everything.

The amateurs like Kramer, Gonzalez, Hoad (of course), Rosewall and Laver were extremely gifted players yet even they had to have so adjustment and improvement in their game. Kramer himself stated that Riggs improved his game. Now that may be to be nice to his friend Riggs but I got the impression from reading Kramer's book that he meant it.

Anyway the bottom line I was trying to convey was that there clearly was a difference in level of play between the pros and the amateurs.

You make a good point, that it was the great amateurs who had little adjustment to make.
Players such as Trabert or Sedgman, who were nearly as good as Kramer and Gonzales, would lose a 100-match series by a considerable margin, even though their talent was almost equivalent to the top players, and in Sedgman's case sometimes superior.
It helped Kramer that Gonzales had a knee injury on the 1950 tour, and Sedgman pulled his serving-arm shoulder muscle, which changed the final outcomes.

Dan, I agree. If we have a look to classical music we see to our astonishment that three out of the four all-time greatest composers lived in the short span of about thirty years and all in the same city: Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert who lived in Vienna. No such a giant in the centuries afterwards. We still wait-in Vienna or elsewhere- for a new Mozart...

You could add Bach, Handel, and Haydn and say that within a century all the greatest composers were active.

A reasonable list. I like that you including Sedgman there who is a very underrated and forgotten player. What about Connors, Kramer and Lendl? This list is fine.

Connors is, I think, below Newcombe on grass, although above on clay or rubber. Shortlisted, together with Newk, Ashe, Trabert, others.
Kramer would beat anyone in a best-of-100 series, but doesn't have the hot end of his game to make a PEAK list.
Likewise Lendl, who famously flubbed at Wimbledon.

Connors is, I think, below Newcombe on grass, although above on clay or rubber. Shortlisted, together with Newk, Ashe, Trabert, others.Kramer would beat anyone in a best-of-100 series, but doesn't have the hot end of his game to make a PEAK list.
Likewise Lendl, who famously flubbed at Wimbledon.

Dan,

That's a very interesting comment you made about Kramer. I agree that is a possibility we cannot rule out. Kramer to me was a fantastic player with many weapons and a total service game that can be argued to be as great as anyone's in history. I am not quite sure what you mean by the hot end of his game.

A head to head series on many surfaces often indicates the true strength of a player and that to me is very important. To me it indicates the peak strength and consistency of a player. There are so many experts who rank Kramer as the best ever. Vic Braden, Don Budge (although Budge probably ranked Budge as number one), Sedgman and many others. Gonzalez named Kramer number one before he played Hoad so I assume Gonzalez ranked Kramer second.

Excellent post. I don`t see how anybody could counter this arguments. The greater the field is, the tougher it is to dominate. Laver for example in the period 64-67 he only had to worry about Rosewall and from time to time with Gimeno, and past their primes Gonzalez and Hoad. From 1968 he had to face (besides Rosewall and Gimeno) Ashe, Newcombe, Smith, Nastase, Connors, Santana, Kodes, etc. Adding the famous "journeymen" to the mix as well. He tasted what a journeyman could do very quickly at the Us Open. However, he came on top most of the times against this field (at least the first 2 or 3 years of the open era), which speaks volumes of him.

Great post.And you did Kodes some justice as well...

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet